( 1 ) BY order dated 21/08/1958. I called for a report from the District Munsif, Narasaraopet, on the following two questions:-- 1. Whether the agreement of sale was executed by the 1st respondent in the application (C. M. P. No. 4747 of 1956) and whether the petitioner was put in possession of the properties; and

( 2 ) WHETHER the compromise dated 30-7-56 entered into between the parties in the second appeal was a collusive and fraudulent one. The learned District Munsif by his order dated 14/12/1956, held that the agreement of sale was executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner. In paragraph 10 he found that the petitioner was in possession of the suit properties in pursuance of the agreement of sale. He further held in paragraph 11 that the compromise entered into between the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 was a collusive and fraudulent one. 2. The finding on point No. 1 is not attacked before me. So far as point No. 2 is concerned, Sri Konda Kotayya, the learned advocate for the third respondent contended that the conclusion drawn by the District Munsif was wrong. Having carefully gone through the report I have no doubt that the conclusion arrived at